About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 6
CNNW 5
CSPAN 4
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
leads the doj's civil rights division and could wind up being the next u.s. labor secretary. a cabinet member who will play a key role in the the president's efforts to raise the minimum wage and reform immigration laws among many other responsibilities, but with at least one former doj attorney describing mr. perez as a quote, radical radical who views the law as, quote, a nuisance, you can bet there's a fight over this man's nomination may get intense. chris stirewalt is our fox news digital power editor on power play.com live. tom perez's tenure heading up to the doj has been controversial to say the least, but he is beloved by those on the left as someone who embodies virtually all the principles they stand for. what does it say that president obama is proceeding with that nomination despite some of the controversies that emerged when he they floated the trial balloon earlier? >> well, in washington we can tell a lot more about somebody's intent by what they do than what they say. what we've heard a lot said of the white house of late is that they're interested in reaching out to r
that could make a contentious battle. perez who heads the civil rights division at the justice department will have questions to answer, but the doj's decision to drop that now infamous voter intimidation case against the new black panther party, as well as a case headed to the supreme court that could have struck down his legal theories on racial discrimination, for more we're joined by editorial board member mary kissle and political diary editor jason riley. mary, you broke the story a year ago about the involvement in the st. paul case, we've since discovered a lot more details thanks to your digging. why did perez get himself involved in in case? >> well, the city of st. paul, minnesota was challenging, a theory of racial discrimination that tom perez and the justice department were using to accuse banks of discrimination, and so, he feared that if the court struck down this particular rule, that he would have to stop doing that, it would cut off a big source of funding, actually, for the justice department. >> so he leaned on st. paul to drop the case and they'd been litigating for
. president obama wants the assistant attorney general for the justice department's civil rights division, thomas perez to be the next secretary of labor. mr. perez is seen by some to be a racial activist. here now to explain attorney and fox news anchor megyn kelly. you are actually covering this on your show. >> yeah. >> bill: that's high brow. >> we do some news on the news show. >> bill: nobody cares about the secretary of labor. most people don't care and i don't blame them. i don't care either. however, however, this appointment that president obama wants to make, this could be very telling about president obama. >> yeah. >> bill: tell me about perez. >> president obama's critics have been saying this sun necessarily divisive this choice. it would be hard to get somebody farther to the left than mr. perez and already some senators are threatening to try to block his confirmation because they believe he has been as one critic put it as quote a radical's radical. the deal with -- look, perez he went to harvard law school. he has experience in labor at the department of labor from mary
. >> this is a big historic moment. >> this is a basic civil rights issue. >> our colleague, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends. >> can you imagine the next presidential campaign, a republican candidate saying flat-out, i am for gay marriage? >> i could. >> immigration makes us stronger. it is part of what makes this such a dynamic country. >> no immigration reform is going to happen unless republicans in the house sign on to it. >> the time's come for comprehensive, sensible immigration reform. >> we are going to have a vote on assault weapons and we're going to have a vote on background checks. >> he can't spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the american public. >> 90% of the public want something. >> i mean, it's insane the stuff he says. >> this isn't about wayne lapierre. it's about the public wanting to be safe on their streets. ♪ you don't need a weatherman to know it's where the wind blows ♪ >> it's a busy and wintery monday on the east coast. congress is on spring break as lawmakers return to their districts where they're likely to face constituents r
.org/possibilities. >>> tomorrow, the supreme court will begin hearing arguments in two of the biggest civil rights cases to reach its docket in years, if not in decades. up for consideration, doma, the so-called defense of marriage act, and california's proposition 8. as the court prepares for an historic moment, more public figures are weighing in. we can now add senator claire mccaskill of missouri and senator mark warner of virginia to the growing number of current and former lawmakers throwing their support behind marriage equality. senator mccaskill wrote, "i have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. while churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry." senator mark warner announced his support for marriage equality in a facebook post. "i support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do." one of the two lawyers arguing against california's prop 8, david boyce, has predicted vark victory. >> i think we're g
to embrace civil rights. it's important to young voters. republican, independent and democrat. no, not one person was willing to take on the issue of gay marriage, which is, of course, the central issue they were implying is driving some young, a lot of younger voters in this country. so they have massive problems. the other problem is that when you look at this report, what they're trying to do, and jonathan martin in "politico" wrote a nice piece about this today. they're suggesting structural changes that will make it much harder for insurgent candidates like the rand pauls or the rick santorums to challenge for the nomination by shortening the process by condensing, by aggregating primaries so that you have to cover a lot more territory. by eliminating caucuses and conventions as a means of nominating candidates by a state. all of those things would give establishment candidates a much better chance to win the nomination and may give the republican party a better chance to win a national election. but they're courting a rebellion among their own troops and you saw some of that at cpac
to be his labor secretary. perez heads the justice department's civil rights division. he has been criticized, though, by some conservatives who think he's too partisan, but he is considered a civil rights hero by others. if confirmed, perez would be the only latino in obama's cabinet. >>> and take a look here at this actor who is playing the role of satan in the history channel miniseries, "the bible." all right. so if you think it looks anything like president obama, you are not alone. social media blew up after the scene aired. there were nearly 20,000 tweets containing the words obama and satan. the producer of the show is denying that it was intentional, saying, quote, this is utter nonsense. the actor who played satan is a highly acclaimed moroccan actor, and he has previously played parts of several biblical epics, long before barack obama was elected as our president. the history channel weighed in, too, releasing this statement. quote, history channel has the highest respect for president obama. it's unfortunate that anyone made this false connection. the silver lining in
discuss their personal experiences during the civil rights movement live tonight at 8:00 eastern part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> jinger gibson is a congressional reporter with politic coe and here to talk to us about congress avoiding a shutdown but first we want to talk about what's been happening the last 18 hours on in the senate. tell us about the passing of the budget. how long did it take and why? >> the senate voted for more than 13 hours straight on the senate floor and finally arrived at 5:00 this morning on passage of a budget. the rules allow them to amend as much as they can. there are a couple of guys wanting to go until 7:00 or 8:00 this morning. luckily they stopped before that. host: for those who went to sleep at a decent hour and didn't see c-span's coverage ll night, what might they be surprised finding out what happened over night? guest: there were four that tic -- democrats voted against the democratic budget. the keystone pupe line was defeated and some amendment that is republicans were chairing that got done, things that dealt with climate change
house says he has been the head of the justice department's civil-rights division for a number of years. president obama plans to announce the nomination this morning at the white house in the east room. c-span2 will have live coverage of that starting at 11:30 this morning. congress is set to return to capitol hill today. later this week to work on fiscal spending for the rest of this budget year and for the next fiscal year. the senate is working on the spending bill and it will be the focus this afternoon. you can see live coverage of the senate beginning at 2:00 eastern on c-span2. before the senate c-span2 will be live with carl levin. he will be at the council on foreign relations. c-span3 will be live with a discussion on the persian gulf. a more private first lady, elizabeth much growth refused to continue the tradition of making social calls to washington post political society. she spoke french inside the white house and gained a reputation of being queenly by her critics. we will see the important role she played in 1824 presidential campaign of her husband, john quincy adams
turned, civil rights law signed by lyndon johnson. to paraphrase, he said i lost the south for a generation. if you peel back what he's trying to say, anyone against this idea of diversity is going to flee the democratic party and go to the republican party. since the signing of this law, democrats have had a difficult time penetrating that bloc of the south states of the traditional southern states. and racial tension isn't part of that bloc. if the republican party really wants to move forward in terms of having diversity, it needs to acknowledge, acknowledge, not say this is who we are, but acknowledge that that part of our history is who still continues to make up a small fraction of the republican party. we're not going to allow these people to be there anymore. a cnn employee who has had shells thrown at her and called a monkey. had they gone on stage and said this is not tolerated here at the rnc, we would not embrace these people. but they didn't do that. they ignored it. >> with all the other stories going on, you may have missed this one. this week an assault ban
back to see where the tide really turned, right, and that was 1964, civil rights law being signed by lyndon johnson and he said, and this is to paraphrase him, i've lost the south for the generation, meaning the democrats have lost south for a generation, and if you really peel back what he's trying to say is that anyone who was against his idea of diversity is going to free the democratic party and go to the republican party, and since the signing of this law democrats have had a very difficult time penetrating that bloc of the south states, of the traditional southern states, and racial tension is part that have block. now if the republican party really wants to move forward in terms of having didversitdivers needs to acknowledge, not say that that's who we are, acknowledge that that part of the history is continuing to make up a small partial of the republican party. a cnn employee had shells thrown at her and called a monkey had. they said this kind of attitude is not tolerated here at the rnc, we would not continue to embrace those kinds of people. they ignored it, and i hope
, but marriage is not a religious her right. it is a civil right that is provided by the government. a church does not cover right to marry someone, except that it is given the right by the government. the government issues marriage license. the government decides who gets married and who does not. in 1967 there was a supreme court case, loving nurses virginia and blacks could not marry whites. they challenged that. the supreme court ruled 9-0. they have rolled 14 times about the fundamental rights of marriage. from a legal standpoint, there is no argument. you can make a moral standpoint if you want, but from a legal standpoint, there is no argument we feel confident. how broadly the supreme court will roll, that we do not know. >> go to c-span.org to see the rest of that discussion. live in half an hour we will have more on this issue. we will bring you a preview of the same-6 marriage cases coming before the high court tomorrow. legal experts -- legal experts will examine the case. that will be live here on c-span starting at 4:00 eastern. president obama today called on congress to begin
senator portman's view gay people ought to have equal marriage rights but he is fine with civil union, except he is apparently not fine with civil unions. he forgot he is actually against them. his office followed up with a statement that said the governor does not actually mean it. quote he may have used the term "civil union" loose lin this instance. the governor's position is unchanged. he gay marriage and changing ohio's constitution to allow for civil unions. ohio republicans banned civil unions for gay people in 2004 and john kasich supports that ban. when he said today quote if you want to have a civil union that's fine with me. he did not mean it. he forgot he doesn't actually believe that. his office had to clean it up and remind him he is actually way more anti-gay than he thinks he is. he had to take back his statement. this happens in republican politics a lot. remember in the presidential campaign, this used to happen to mitt romney all the time. the worst one was that cnbc interview he did with scott pelley. >> my position has been clear throughout this campaign. i'm in
to have a civil union, that's fine with me. interviewing john kasich about his views on gay rights. this is a very relevant issue in ohio republican politics because ohio senator ron portman just changed his position to be in favor of gay marriage now because he has a gay son. he told this interviewer he has talked to senator portman about the issue, he does not share senator portman's view gay people ought to have equal marriage rights but he is fine with civil union, except he is apparently not fine with civil unions. he forgot he is actually against them. his office followed up with a statement that said the governor does not actually mean it. quote he may have used the term "civil union" loose lin this instance. the governor's position is unchanged. he gay marriage and changing ohio's constitution to allow for civil unions. ohio republicans banned civil unions for gay people in 2004 and john kasich supports that ban. when he said today quote if you want to have a civil union that's fine with me. he did not mean it. he forgot he doesn't actually believe that. his office had to c
favor of states granting marriage licenses -- states should be granting civil unions -- >> hal: you are right. the paper work is mildly different, but every teacher says by the authority granted to me by the state of wisconsin -- which is really weird by the way. >> caller: i think one of the interesting things is that so many that say that liberals think the government is the answer to all of their problems will turn around and say what we want is our religious son september of marriage we want to be sanctioned by the state. >> hal: right. it's like people say i don't believe there are ever any innocent people put to death on death row. and i just want to say hi chris, and if he wants to call in and let us know how we're doing, i would love him too. but you don't have to. we'll be right back with more cpac goodies. and rush. [♪ theme music ♪] >> hal: you know, the thing is the conversation just continues no matter what we do. every time we get to this point in the show there is no way to segue into introducing jacki schechner and the news she is part read
- based privacy standards to ensure that individual rights and civil liberties are protected. >> thank you. i will submit a question for the record. i would appreciate if you would respond. you talked about supreme court cases regarding the of aerialonality surveillance. do you believe that body of supreme court cases are adequate for guarding the courts and law enforcement in the area of unmanned surveillance? i think theyure are adequate for purposes of man surveillance. with unmanned surveillance, there is an additional danger that as costs go down you see more. i am not sure that they are adequate. they need to be updated. >> inc. you very much. >> the supreme court has held observations made by while following a maned aircraft over a person's property does not violate the fourth amendment. conductere allowed to surveillance over private property at heights ranging from 400 feet to 1000 feet. low must a joan fly over a low mustrophecy -- hwopow prorone fly over private perty. were to if a drone trespass, that would trigger the fourth amendment. it used to be that you own all of the air
right it seems to me to marry. if you want to say they have the 8 state solution where you say these are states that say you you can have civil marriage but can't have marriage per se. can't have a gay marriage. if that is the case why are you stigmatizing marriage in that situation. in the california case a matter of revoking something that has already been granted right to marriage. in both situations it seems you a constitutional right. a human being. an american citizen. you should have equal rights coast-to-coast. you ask the critical question what the rest of the panel is talking about this morning. the politics of it are that if the court rules everybody will be angry at the court and say that supreme court they are an elite and trying to tell us what to do justice kennedy who senator bayh is likely the swing vote. you can't have nine unelected people narrowly focused on the law making big decisions for the country. if that is the way they feel they will make a political decision and say it is up to the the states let them do what they want. con is not a matter of the ci
would oppose a striking down of a right to same sex marriage, you want to leave it in the state legislature? >> look, i would prefer every state in the union keep the definition of marriage that prevailed in western civilization for a couple thousand years. that doesn't look like that is going to happen. so, i certainly at this point would prefer the people of the states to make the decision, as they -- and by the way, chris, it is worth mentioning that the briefs that nicole is supporting, which supports the judge, the prop 8 judge, somebody ought to read his decision, his animus, his hostility to people of faith, was disgusting. >> chris: all right, he's not here to defend himself, but, people can read it if they want and the other case, the court will hear and there are two big cases involves the defense of marriage act. >> right. >> chris: which president clinton signed in 1996. which bans federal marital benefits for same sex couples who are legally married in their states. you have acknowledged states have the right to declare, to decide that same sex marriage is legal. as
there this morning. where else the storm is hitting right now. bill: a lot of places too. there is growing evidence syria crossed that red line by using chemical weapons. triggering calls for greater u.s. involvement in that country's civil war. >> i look at all the data points over the last two years from these intelligence reports and i believe there is high probability that some level of chemical weapons were used in syria by the assad regime. @e@8ñúñ÷@@@0@ú bill: so a top u.s. law i canner -- lawmaker saying the u.s. government crossed a red line saying it used chemical weapons against opposition forces. now he is urging the u.s. to get more involved in syria's civil war to prevent further bloodshed. >> i think it is abundantly clear that that red line has been crossed. there is mounting evidence that it is probable that the assad regime has used least a small quantity of chemical weapons during this conflict. bill: moo i can religionkers. kt macfarland, fox news security analyst. >> good morning. >> red line, chemical weapons, why is it a week later and there still seems to be a n
philosophical foundation to the law of a civilization. >> just to be precise if you believe life begins at conception which i suspect you do you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother is that right? >> i think that once again puts things in too small of a box. what i would say is there are thousands of exceptions. i'm a physician and every individual case is going to be different. everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going won that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother. i would say after birth we've decided when life begins we don't have exceptions for one-day-olds or 6 mnlds. we don't ask where they came from or how they came into being but it is more complicated because the rest begidepends on definition of life and when it begins. i've been there at the beginning of life. i've held one-pound babies in my hand that i examined their eyes. i've been there at the end of life. there are a lot of decisions made privately by families and doctors that really won't, the law won't apply to but i think it is important
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)